What Might Be Some Social and Cultural Consequences of Iatrogenesis - Coursework Example

Iatrogenesis Contents Contents 2 Introduction 3 Conclusion 15 Reference 17 Introduction The establishment of medicine has become amain threat to health. The professional control of Medicine has reached a point of disabling impact and has become the main threat to health. The name for the new epidemic has been given the name iatrogenesis. The claim by Illich is that iatrogenesis outdo any medical benefits that are positive (Barnet, 2003). In his argument, he differentiates three types of iatrogenesis. These three types include clinical, social and cultural iatrogenesis (Hedgecoe, 1998). Clinical iatrogenesis entails a health condition obtained from the hospital. This clinical iatrogenesis largely entails the side effects due to doctors medication and side effects of medication. Furthermore, clinical iatrogenesis may also be due to negligence, ignorance, and malpractice. These may poison and even cause the death of patients (Illich, 1975). Social iatrogenesis is through reinforcing a society that is morbid hence encourages patients to be customers of preventive, curative, environmental and industrial drugs. It makes the patient to be hypochondria and to put their lives at the medical experts mercy (Illich, 1975). Confirmation to mean, the patience will totally depend on the medical professionals who allegedly undermine the capacity of individuals. Finally, cultural iatrogenesis mean that the will of members are weakened by the societies through paralyzing healthy responses to impairment, suffering, and death (Illich, 1975). In cultural iatrogenesis, the entire culture becomes overmedicalized with doctors assuming the priest role and social and political problems getting into the medical domain. The argument of Illich can be places in wide debate content about excessive bureaucratization and professionalization of modern life (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). Sociologists like Jack Douglas have said that the sphere in which the professional activities may have a consequence that is unintended is not only the medicine (Fathers Manifesto, 2015). The paper will finally talk of the advantages and disadvantages of iatrogenesis. The history of Iatrogenesis The term iatrogenesis was introduced in social science by Ivan Illich (Medical Nemesis, 1976). This introduction was also part of Illich attack in industrial society and majorly in bureaucratic and technological institution, for limiting justice and freedom and incapacitating and corrupting individuals (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). Cultural iatrogenesis Cultural iatrogenesis is the distraction of the traditional ways of dealing with death, sickness and pain. Dying has become the consumers resistance ultimate form (Smith, 2002). In this way, life medicalization leads to cultural harm as the members of the Society lost their coping skills (Conrad, 2013). Illich does not reject all the modern society benefits but rejects those that entail unwarranted exploitation and dependency (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). To be in a perfect health condition means benefiting from the reality that an individual is healthy, and is able to achieve success through the given results. Furthermore, it means to be capable to feel alive in pain and in pleasure and also to risk surviving and to cherish. Suffering and health are phenomenal that distinguish men from beast. Human health adds honesty to the performance of instinctual. To be in a perfect health condition is something more than concrete behaviour pattern in custom, tradition, usage or habit cluster. It implies performance determined by control mechanisms that are set. These control mechanisms include recipes, plans, rules, and instruction, all that governs the behaviour of a person. To a larger extent, healthy and culture coincides (Fitzpatrick, 2004). Each culture gives shape to a sole health Gestalt and to a unique conformation of attitude towards pain, impairment, diseases and death, each of which designates human performance class that has been called traditionally as art of suffering (Dunn, 1976). Each health of a person is a responsible act in the social script. How each person relates to the sweetness and bitterness of reality and the performance of each person towards those perceived as weak or suffering. The sense of body is experienced as the gift of culture that is ever renewed. In Java people mainly say that being Java is being human (Wessing, 2006). Children that are small, simpletons, books, the insane, and those that are flagrantly immoral are referred to people that are not Javanese. An adult who is normal and is in a position of acting in a highly elaborate system terms of etiquette, possessed of perception of delicate aesthetic associated with dance, music, textile design, and drama. In addition, they are responsive to the prompting subtle to the divine residing in each person’s stillness and their inward-turning consciousness is already Javanese (Wessing, 2006). To be human is not only just to breathe but to control the breathing of a person by a technique referred to as yoga. This is to hear the inhalation and exhalation of the literal Gods voice pronouncing his name, hu Allah. Each society style bounds cultured health in the art of living, suffering, feasting and dying (Wessing, 2006). The hygienic function of all traditional culture is derived from their ability to prepare the individual in the way of making sickness understandable, making the pain tolerable. In such, cultural health care is always a working, drinking, eating, loving, breathing, exercising, politicking, dreaming, singing, suffering and warring. Most of the healing is a traditional way of caring, confronting and consoling people while they heal. The surviving cultures are only those that adaptable viable codes to a genetic makeup group to its environment, history, and the competing group represented peculiar challenges (Madamombe, 2006). The prompted believe by a cosmopolitan medical enterprise that is contemporary runs against those functions. It drastically undermines the old cultural program continuity and hinders the appearance of the new ones that would produce a suffering and self-care pattern. In any part of the world that a culture is medicalized, the traditional framework of conscious habit in as personal practice of the mechanical system which trammelled the hygiene of virtue in a progressive manner. Furthermore, the codes of medicine in which instructions are coming from custodians that are hygienic are submitted into by the individuals. Medicalization consists of a program of bureaucratic prolific that is based on each mans denial need to deal with sickness, pain, and death (Biley, n.d). The modern medical enterprises try to do to people what there cultural and genetic heritage previously was able to prepare them for themselves. Medical civilization is organized and planned to eliminate sickness, to kill pain and to eliminate an art of dying and suffering. This progressive distraction of personal performance virtuous contains a new goal which has never been a social life guideline. Healing, suffering and dying which is a fundamental activity that are intransitive that was taught to each man by culture, are now claimed by technocracy as a new field of policy making. Furthermore, they are treated as malfunction of the institutional revelation of the population. The goal of the civilization of metropolitan medical is thus to every single culture health program opposition they came across in the progressive colonization process (Friedman, 2013). Social iatrogenesis Social iatrogenesis comes from the medicalization of life. Most of the problems are seen as agreeable to the intervention of medical. The medicalization of life is by medical professionals, medical device companies, and pharmaceutical companies have an interest in sickness sponsoring by creating health demand that is unrealistic (Conrad, 2005). Furthermore, these health demands require more treatment that is a component of the normal peoples experience, as the age-related decline. In this way, the medical associated industries and medical practice aspects can produce social harm in which the members of the society become less healthy, depends excessively on institutional care. Physician medical education contributes to medicalization because they are well-trained for treating and diagnosis of illness hence the have put their focus on diseases instead of health. Pharmaceutical companies develop non-diseases treatments that are expensive. Health care takes a larger proportion of the budget. In the year 1975, the United States of America spent ninety-five billion on health care (Smith, 2002). Medicalization increase is also evidenced in behaviours that are deviant and social control is seen in the way hyperkinesis. Hyperkinesis is a medical label for certain childrens deviant behaviour which has been recently prevented due to medicalization (Conrad, 1975). It can also be argued that medicine undermines health in both direct aggressions against individuals and through the social organization impact on the total milieu. Social iatrogenesis designates an aetiology category that consists of many forms. Medical bureaucracy is able to create ill health through an increase in stress. This is through a generation of painful needs, and multiplication of disabling dependence. Medical bureaucracy has an impact in increasing the level of discomfort an individual feels, while accessing some treatment. Social iatrogenesis is always at play when health care is turned into an item of standardization. In addition, it is a staple when all the suffering is hospitalized, and homes become a place that cannot hospitalize sickness, birth, and death. This is mainly when the way in which a person could experience his body is turned into a gobbledegook that is bureaucratic. Women childbirth The services in the maternity are a result of stress through their antenatal investigations. This is to mean they bring about dependency by the way in which they communicate with the clients. This is by communicating to the client in a way which precludes the client treatment as an expert in his condition or equal to the professional. The service in the maternity creates new painful needs in the way they emphasise on drugs that relief instead of the good-quality emotional support. Furthermore, this reduces the clients ability to manage their pain level and home is normally considered a safe place to giving birth. The process institutionalisation makes self-care ridiculous, some of the women prefer to birth alone however, and it is very unusual. This is seen as deviant. In short this includes phenomena such as childbearing women concentration into large maternity units that are centralized. In addition, the blanket policies imposition such as usual induction at a given gestation and the general culture in which there is a difference in women from those who they believe to be more expert instead of trusting in their experience validity. In general, childbirth is perceived as a medical occurrence instead of being perceived as a womens physiological normal aspect function or part of their task in the culture or family. Questioning if weather childbirth is an event that is medical seems to be a statement that is extreme and it is evidence to the degree to which this has been internalised (Williams, & Calnan, 1996). Most of the women who employ midwives that are independent do so to avoid a traumatic previous experience. Independent midwives provide a continuous trusted and known carer. It is also supports a philosophy in which home is seen as a safe place where the clients have privacy and autonomy. Good emotional support and communication prevents tokophobia. Women centred care and good communication implies that the client is the one controlling the process. Informed consent is supreme, and Consent cannot be informed if the information is biased or partial. These conditions mainly do not exist in the National Hospitals in which hierarchical relationship are taken for granted (Williams, & Calnan, 1996). Obstetric social iatrogenesis This has contributed to providing an environment in which most of the women have a fear of giving birth via virginal. This fear has made the women prefer caesarean section as the best alternative as compared to virginal birth. In general, women have little faith in their ability to deliver by them self and have placed all their faith in caesarean section. Women are ready to take the higher risk of allowing their wombs to be cut open. This has made them be exposed to high risk of womb infection as comparison to their thoughts of what might happen if their childbirth takes the normal procedure. Women totally do not consider the high risk in which they are endangering their lives. Furthermore, the do not consider the increasing possibility that their child has a higher chances of being lacerated by the scalpel. In addition to this, there babies respiratory initiation must take place without the need of the helpful stimulus of virginal compression followed by the emergence release that is sudden (Murphy-Lawless, 1998). Medical Monopoly As the counterpart of clinical iatrogenesis, social iatrogenesis can rise from one feature that is adventitious into a characteristic that is inherent of the system of medical. When the critical threshold of the biomedical intervention is crossed, clinical iatrogenesis changes from accident, error or faulty into a medical practice that is an incurable perversion. In a similar way, when there is degeneration of professional autonomy into a radical monopoly, and people are declared impotent, social iatrogenesis will become the main medical organization product (Furrow, 2011). The evil spread of medicine has the comparable result; this is to mean that it turns self-medication and mutual care into felonies or misdemeanors. This is when compared to clinical iatrogenesis which is incurable when it reaches a certain level, and it can only be reversed through an enterprise decline. So is social iatrogenesis be reversed only by the retrenchment of the professional domain as a result of the political action. Social iatrogenesis is still not accepted as a common etiology of diseases. If it were identified that diagnosis frequently as a means of turning the complaints of political against the growth stress into need for more therapist that are just more of stressful and costly output, one of the major defence will be lost by the industrial system. At the same time, being conscious of the degree to which iatrogenesis ill-health is communicated politically would shake the base of the power of medicine deeply than any catalogue of a technical fault of medicine (Fanning, & Glover, 2010). Value-Free Cure There is always a confusion of the issue of social iatrogenesis with the healer diagnostic authority. To protect their reputation and to defuse the issue, some physicians insist that the practice of medicine can not be possible without the iatrogenic creation of a disease. Medicine constantly creates illness as a social state (Conrad, 2010). The social possibility for acting sick is transmitted to the individual by a reorganized healer. Each culture has its perception of the disease characteristics hence its a hygienic mark that is unique. The disease features are taken from the physician who cast one of the available roles to the actors. To make people sick is understood in the power of physician as the poisonous potential of the working remedy. In the society that is primitive, it is very obvious that in the application of skills of medicine, the moral power recognition is implied. The medicine man will be summoned by nobody until he approved to the person the skill of identifying the evil spirit from the good ones (Illich, 2010). This power expands in a higher civilization. Here the full-time specialist is the one who exercise the medicine, and he controls a large population by means of the bureaucratic institution. A profession which forms a sole type of control over their work is formed by these specialists. Different from the union, these specialists obtains their independence not from the victory over struggle but to the confident grant. Different from the guilds, which determine how and who shall work, the work that is to be done is also determined. In the United States, the professionals in medicine owe the supreme authority to a medical school reform just before the World War 1 (Illich, 2010). The professional in medical is a manifestation in a given sector of structural control in the power of the class that has been acquired by the University- trained elites. Nowadays the doctors are the one who understands what sickness constitutes (Illich, 2010), who is sick and what is to be done to those at risk and those who are sick. Ironically western medicine, which has insisted on maintaining its power apart from religion and law, has now expanded it past precedent. In some societies that have been medicalized to level where all deviance has to have the label of medical. The explicit eclipse of moral component in the diagnosis of medical has invested totalitarian power with Aesculapian authority. Consequences of cultural and social iatrogenesis Most of the people currently rely on the western medicine in case of any small pain or ill hence undermining the capability of there body immune system. Women on the other hand have shifted from the normal virginal child birth into caesarean section. They have become deep into the caesarean in an extent that they do not consider the increasing risk that their children have a high chances of lacerated by the scalpel (Murphy-Lawless, 1998). Social iatrogenesis has made child birth to be perceived as a medical occurrence normal aspect in the women’s physiological (Williams, & Calnan, 1996). Another consequence is that a new painful need has been created in the maternity by the emphasis on the pain relief drugs instead of the good quality emotional support. Both the social and cultural iatrogenesis has limited the ability of the clients to mange their level of pain and has considered home as not a better place to give birth. Furthermore, both cultural and social iatrogenesis has made homes to be perceived as place that a sick person, birth and death. The other consequence of iatrogenesis is that suffering, healing and dying which is the intrusive fundamental activity that was taught to each man by culture. These activities are now claimed by technocracy as a new policy making field. The medical enterprises that are modern, tries to do top the people what there genetic heritage and cultural was previously able to prepare them for themselves. The hygienic function of all the traditional culture is obtained from their ability for individual preparation in a way of making sickness understandable, hence making the pain tolerable. Social and cultural iatrogenesis has distracted the traditional way of dealing with the sickness, death and pain. These consequences have really contributed to total dependency on the drugs as compared to trusting our body. Disadvantages and advantages of iatrogenesis The risk factor for iatrogenic complication includes the increased illness severity and the cure complexity, and a greater number of prescribed medications. Furthermore, other risk factors for iatrogenic is the admission from nursing home and longer length of stay. Finally, is a lack of attention to upon admission to functional impairment by the physician. Another advantage of iatrogenesis is the increase of polypharmacy that increases the risk of the interaction of drug-drug of older people which is more dramatic. The increase of the number of medication also increases the occurrence of the greater exponential risk (Berger, Savvides, Koroukian, Kahana, Deimling, Rose, Miller, 2006). There is a doubling in the occurrences of surgical complication in patients over the age of sixty-five years as compared to those patients that are young and both the rate of death and postoperative complication tend tom increase with the increase in age. Giving an example of a surgical patient is that Geriatric patients account for three-fourth of all operative death and half of all emergency surgical (Berger, Savvides, Koroukian, Kahana, Deimling, Rose, Miller, 2006). Hence for survival, optical perioperative care and timely diagnosis is critical. Iatrogenesis high-risk patient includes geriatric patients when once infected are at high risk to experience the adverse outcome. Furthermore, patients that are critically ill tend to be most immune and sickest compromised patients. These patients also undergo procedures that are more invasive and intravascular device which increases the risk of secondary infection significantly. Another risk of iatrogenesis is that between twenty-five to sixty percent of elders who are hospitalized risk the loss of physical function during the hospitalization course. And finally, prolonged stay in the hospital increases the risk of the placement in the nursing home and death. A good example of the disadvantage of iatrogenesis is in umbilical cord prolapsed. Approximately half the cases of umbilical cord prolapsed may be linked to cases of iatrogenic. However, iatrogenic umbilical cord prolapsed does not appear to be clinically linked to the poor outcome (Murphy & MacKenzie, 1995). This is because the questioned procedures are always performed on delivery and labour unit where there is the availability of necessary intervention and continuous fatal monitoring. In addition, iatrogenic umbilical cord prolapsed can be experienced in cases were risk factors may have led to prolepses that are spontaneous without intervention. This finding is supported by the studies because of the different obstetric regional style of practice have no effect on the umbilical cord prolapsed incidence. Most of the people argue that the medicalization process does not benefit most of the people in the world (Berger, Savvides, Koroukian, Kahana, Deimling, Rose, Miller, 2006). One of the benefits of medicalization is that in identifying a condition as a disorder or a disease, some of the condition that affects the quality, and the experience of life can be treated. One of the evidence is the Alzheimers medicalization which was a disease that was previously neglected and was always associated with senility (Ireland, Corydon, 2009). It was now categorized as an illness of mental and can now be treated using biomedical drugs. In addition, the classification of individual as suffering from some biological malfunction form may relief a person from the ostracism feeling, for it provides them with an explanation to why they are feeling different. The word medicalization entered into medical and academic publication in the year 1970s (Moldovan, & Copoeru, 2013). This was most notably in the work of such as Irving Zola, Thomas Szasz and Peter Conrad. They argue that the expansion of medical authority to every day was promoted by the health specialists and was a social control force, but was rejected, with an excuse of liberation. The increasing medical technique that is sophisticated had extended this type of social control. According to Ivan Illich (1975), influentially made the first uses if the term medicalization. Illich, who is a known philosopher, argue that the professionals in medicine crates harm to the people in the process referred to as iatrogenesis. This is where there is an increase in the number of health problems due to the actions of the doctors. He continues to argue that medicalization has rendered societies and individuals to be unable to deal with these natural processes that happen. The assessment of professional medicine by Illich and mainly his use of the term medicalization caught up very first as the expansion category critics of illness and health appeared (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). This is in the 1980s, and 1970s, with the emergence of a large number of literatures in this subject. Iatrogenesis in cancer treatment Most of the cancer therapists always have some serious side effects. With careful therapies selection, the risks are adequate as are the factors that contribute to better care including of the therapy iatrogenic disorder. It is of facts that new drugs and drugs combination during the treatment of cancer. As there is a more appreciation of this increase, the schedule adjustment is contributing to the decrease of such disorders (Harrington, 2015). Conclusion The medicalization process also faced a lot of criticism from those who are cautious about the increasing biomedical profession jurisdiction. One of the criticisms is that the professional of the biomedical are intruding in the daily life experience and are determined in increasing the profit in the drug industries. A number of studies are able to prove that when new diseases are able to appear, then there will be an extensive research aimed at developing new drugs, and this is good for pharmaceutical companies. However, the disease or illness label may attach a stigma to a disease being labelled increasing the experience of an individual as disordered or sick. Furthermore, medicalization has gone criticism as a form of social constructionism. Therefore, in this light it is certain social institution authority rather than the nature objectivism that determines what is defined as a disease or what is healthy. Each culture provides shapes to a gestalt of heath that is unique and to an exceptional conformation of attitude towards diseases, pain, impairments, and death. When any of the behaviour, emotion, or physical characteristics becomes unbearable by the person defining it in that way, the chances of becoming sick and being provided therapy or treatment increases. However, in case the same behaviour, emotion, or physical characteristic is referred as sufferable, the possibility of therapy or treatment declines. The depended of the people on specialized doctors has made people to forget their strength and ability. Most of the women have forgotten their ability for virginal birth and prefers there cutting open their womb. This process was initially undertaken for pregnant women who need emergency or whose lives were endangered by the child they were caring. Every little pain that a person feels in his body can be solved with the body. However people have built there trust on the western medicines. Reference Ackerknecht, E. H. (1965). History and Geography of the Most Important Diseases. History and Geography of the Most Important Diseases. Ackerknecht, E. H. (1970). Zur Geschichte der iatrogenen Erkrankungen des Nervensystems. Barnet, R. J. (2003). Ivan Illich and the nemesis of medicine.Medicine, Health Care andPhilosophy,6(3), 273-286. Berger, N. A., Savvides, P., Koroukian, S. M., Kahana, E. F., Deimling, G. T., Rose, J. H., ... & Miller, R. H. (2006). Cancer in the elderly. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 117, 147. Biley, F. C. The ‘Sickening’Search for Health: Ivan Illich’s revised thoughts on the medicalization of life and medical iatrogenesis. Cochrane, A. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. Conrad, P. (1975). The Discovery of Hyperkinesis: Notes on the Medicalization of Deviant Behavior.Soc. Probs.,23, 12. Conrad, P. (2005). The shifting engines of medicalization.Journal of health and social behavior,46(1), 3-14. Conrad, P. (2010).Deviance and medicalization: From badness to sickness. Temple University Press. Conrad, P. (2013). Medicalization: changing contours, characteristics, and contexts. InMedical Sociology on the Move (pp. 195-214). Fanning, J., & Glover-Thomas, N. (2010). TAKE THIS MEDICINE: THE LEGALITY OF PRESCRIPTION INCENTIVE SCHEMES. Medical law review, 18(3), 417-426. Fathers manifesto. (2015). The Role of jews in Iatrogenesis. Web< http://fathersmanifesto.net/iatrogenesis.htm > accessed April 29, 2015. Fitzpatrick, M. (2002).The tyranny of health: doctors and the regulation of lifestyle. Routledge. Fitzpatrick, M. (2004). From nanny stateto therapeutic state. British Journal of General Practice,54(505), 645-645. Friedman, A. M. (2013). Treating chronic pain: The healing partnership. Springer. Furrow, B. R. (2011). Adverse Events and Patient Injury: Coupling Detection, Disclosure, and Compensation. New Eng. L. Rev., 46, 437. Garb, S. (1970). Clinical guide to undesirable drug interactions and interferences. Georgopoulos, B. S. (1972). Organization research on health institutions. Top of Form Giddens, A., & Griffiths, S. (2006). Sociology. Cambridge, UK [u.a.: Polity Press. Harrington WJ, (2015). Iatrogenic disorder from cancer treatment. Web < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/371358> accessed May 7, 2015. Hedgecoe, A. (1998). Geneticization, medicalisation and polemics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 1(3), 235-243. Illich, I. (2010). Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. Pan. Illich, I. (2010). 42. The Problem with Medicine. Sociology: Introductory Readings, 254. Illich, I. (1975). Clinical damage, medical monopoly, the expropriation of health: three dimensions of iatrogenic tort. Journal of medical ethics, 1(2), 78.Bottom of Form Ireland, Corydon. (2009). Scholars Discuss ‘medicalization’ of Formerly Normal Characteristics. Harvard Gazette. Web < http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/04/scholars-discuss- ‘medica >accessed May 1, 2015. Klempner, M. S., Hu, L. T., Evans, J., Schmid, C. H., Johnson, G. M., Trevino, R. P., ... & Weinstein, A. (2001). Two controlled trials of antibiotic treatment in patients with persistent symptoms and a history of Lyme disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 345(2), 85-92. Madamombe, I. (2006). Traditional healers boost primary health care. Africa renewal, 19(4), 5. Moldovan, S., & Copoeru, I. (2013). THE VIRTUES AND LIMITS OF THE BIOMEDICAL MODEL FOR INTERPRETING BEHAVIOURS RELATED TO SUBSTANCE MISUSE AND ADDICTION. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Philosophia, (Sp. Issue), 71-77. Murphy, D. J., & MacKenzie, I. Z. (1995). The mortality and morbidity associated with umbilical cord prolapse. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 102(10), 826-830. Murphy-Lawless, J. (1998). Reading birth and death: a history of obstetric thinking. Indiana University Press. Powles, J. (1973). On the limitations of modern medicine. Science, Medicine and Man, 1(1), 1. Rothstein, W. G. (2000). Trends in mortality in the twentieth century. The Nations Health, 9. Smith, R. (2002). Limits to Medicine. Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health. BMJ, 324(7342), 923. Wessing, R. (2006). A community of spirits: People, ancestors, and nature spirits in Java. Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 11-111. Williams, S. J., & Calnan, M. (1996). The ‘limits’ of medicalization?: modern medicine and the lay populace in ‘late’modernity. Social science & medicine, 42(12), 1609-1620. Read More